Kill teh Orcs?

[Morty]

Why "unnerving"?

I was being sarcastic here, because I think that it's perfectly normal for moralty to be ambigous.


All of which have their basis in the Alignment system, which arbitrarily declares Necromancy to be Evil for no reason.

Well, there's that thing about forcing souls from their rightful rest and all that. But the point is, you don't have to put a red label on something to know it's wrong.


Firstly, Warhammer Orcs *are* evil, or at the very least so unremittingly violent that they're the functional equivalent.

True, but they don't have a superfluous "evil" label. Warhammer manages to be black-and-white in many aspecst without alignment rules preventing it from having shades of gray elsewhere.


Also, in Warhammer, as in 40K, Orcs literally *do* have no women and children. They grow from spores.

I'm speaking from the perspective of WFRPG, where it's not confirmed. But that's not the point here anyway.


Not if you don't mind them fighting an order of magnitude less than PCs in D&D games. Which I don't, but then I don't play D&D.

Nonsense. Bandits raiding a village aren't less evil and worth killing if they don't have glowing red "EVIL" labels on them. They don't need to have green(or yellow or whatever) skin and fangs either. Same goes for doom cultists or whatnot.

[Athaniar]

Which isn't a problem if you don't treat them as one.
That's my point. We shouldn't treat them as such.



No, he's not a realistic portrayal. Real mass murderers and cult leaders have an agenda, Voledmort's only agenda is to be totally eeeevillle and get himself killed. He *doesn't* act like a cult leader. He doesn't offer his followers anything, he doesn't have a plan or a vision or a goal. He just wants to get Harry.
Tell me of one mass murderer or cult leader with an agenda that made more sense than Voldy. Voldemort is a racist who wants to kill all "half-bloods", like Adolf Hitler (Godwin's Law, I summon thee!). He also has a fear of death, that's why he is a lich. He is really kind of a believable character if you read close enough.

[Xuincherguixe]

Hey, the Orcs need the favor of their Dark Gods. They live on pretty bad land, and adventurers keep coming along slaughtering them. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Elves and Dwarves keep slaughtering them too.

Only a god who has the power to crush a mountain with a single stroke, to blow away all the life of a forest leaving nothing but dust, to throw rocks which impact with such force as to spread it's citizens in an a million directions at once in ten million pieces, who strikes the ocean, and the ocean doesn't come back down for days.

What god could possibly fill that role that the other races have? The puny elf gods, who fear the spear and axe so that they must engage running at a distance, hiding in the trees? The lazy Human gods, always on a quest to avoid doing any work? The Gnome or Halfling gods, who like the races they created are small and forgotten? The Dwarf gods who might actually be a threat, if they weren't constantly drunk and questing for gold?

No, the Orcs worship the only gods worth worshiping. Gods of Death, Power, Destruction, Strength, Blood and War.

*screams!*

... Yeah. I like Orcs.

Seriously, mook races like Goblins and Orcs are handled terribly. It'd be much better if they simply had a different perspective. One who's people would thank their killers for giving them a death honorable enough to join their gods dead legions. Or exclaiming, "Finally! Someone worth killing!".

It's not that you're killing them because they're evil. You're killing them because they're completely insane. Way better than killing them because their clothes have some spikes, and they look different.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I was being sarcastic here, because I think that it's perfectly normal for moralty to be ambigous.

So do I, in the real world. I also happen to feel that the correct way to deal with a morally ambiguous situation is to avoid killing people.


Well, there's that thing about forcing souls from their rightful rest and all that. But the point is, you don't have to put a red label on something to know it's wrong.

That's the thing. D&D necromancy fairly explicitly doesn't *do* that. The "Animate Dead" spell turns a corpse (whose soul has departed to become a petitioner on some other plane) into an Undead Monster. It's functionally equivalent to casting Animate Object on a corpse.

It's actually *only* the red label that makes Necromancy wrong at all.


True, but they don't have a superfluous "evil" label. Warhammer manages to be black-and-white in many aspecst without alignment rules preventing it from having shades of gray elsewhere.

Umm ... WFRP *does* have Alignment rules. It has some very, very objective ideas of Good and Evil.


I'm speaking from the perspective of WFRPG, where it's not confirmed. But that's not the point here anyway.

So am I. WFRP has an Alignment system, as well as some implicit assumptions about which races are Good (Elves, Humans) and Evil (Orcs, Dark Elves, Chaos).


Nonsense. Bandits raiding a village aren't less evil and worth killing if they don't have glowing red "EVIL" labels on them. They don't need to have green(or yellow or whatever) skin and fangs either. Same goes for doom cultists or whatnot.

There's two options here.

Either bandits raiding a village are "evil and worth killing" in which case your vaunted "moral ambiguity" is all for nothing, and you've sneaked Alignment in through the back door, or they're just regular people trying to get by, who have been driven to raiding by circumstances.

If the former, you functionally have an Alignment system. If the latter, killing the bandits is *not* an acceptable solution.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Tell me of one mass murderer or cult leader with an agenda that made more sense than Voldy.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tsung, Charles Manson, Winston Churchill, L Ron Hubbard, and ... well pretty much everybody else.

They all had specific goals, they all actually achieved them, instead of running around like idiots doing whatever the plot demanded.


Voldemort is a racist who wants to kill all "half-bloods", like Adolf Hitler (Godwin's Law, I summon thee!). He also has a fear of death, that's why he is a lich. He is really kind of a believable character if you read close enough.

If Voldemort wanted to kill all half-bloods why didn't he actually ... y'know ... do it? And *why* did he want to kill all Half-Bloods? Hitler wanted to get rid of the untermensch in order to make Germany into a great nation, and it actually kind of worked. And where did his racist ideas come from? It's not like he was brought up in Wizard society with Wizard prejudices.

And if he was so afraid of death why, why, why for the love of god did he act like such a complete moron? Why did he insist that none of his minions were allowed to kill Harry Potter?

Voldemort *sounds* like a believable character if you ignore his actual *actions*, but he's really just J. Q. Dark Lord. He runs around acting like a twit to show how totally eeevillle he is. If you can believe in an individual who is Just Evil and who does Stupid Evil Stuff to show how Evil he is, why can't you believe the same of Orcs?

[Morty]

So do I, in the real world. I also happen to feel that the correct way to deal with a morally ambiguous situation is to avoid killing people.

True. I don't see how it should be any different in a D&D world. A person might think that killing for moralty is wrong, or that it's right.


That's the thing. D&D necromancy fairly explicitly doesn't *do* that. The "Animate Dead" spell turns a corpse (whose soul has departed to become a petitioner on some other plane) into an Undead Monster. It's functionally equivalent to casting Animate Object on a corpse.

It's actually *only* the red label that makes Necromancy wrong at all.

Yet another reason why alignment system is bogus.


Umm ... WFRP *does* have Alignment rules. It has some very, very objective ideas of Good and Evil.

Does it? I've never noticed it. I'm playing 2nd edition however, and I've heard the 1st edition did have alignment.


So am I. WFRP has an Alignment system, as well as some implicit assumptions about which races are Good (Elves, Humans) and Evil (Orcs, Dark Elves, Chaos).

True, WFRPG is black-and-white in many aspects. But in others, not so much, which is possible because in 2ed at least it doesn't have any rules for this.


There's two options here.

Either bandits raiding a village are "evil and worth killing" in which case your vaunted "moral ambiguity" is all for nothing, and you've sneaked Alignment in through the back door, or they're just regular people trying to get by, who have been driven to raiding by circumstances.

If the former, you functionally have an Alignment system. If the latter, killing the bandits is *not* an acceptable solution.

So I take it the real world has an alignment system as well? Because, you know, through the whole history people have been killing marauders who invaded their homes without being forced to do it. And if they were forced to do it, attacked people defended themselves anyway, because otherwise they'd get killed and robbed. Are you seriously suggesting that if in a story someone attacks someone else purely out of greed and cruelty -something that happened all the time and still happens in real world- there's an alignment system "sneaked in through the backdoor". Also, do you really think that either all bandits/orcs are just misunderstood or purely evil without considering there might be both types present?

[Dan_Hemmens]

So I take it the real world has an alignment system as well? Because, you know, through the whole history people have been killing marauders who invaded their homes without being forced to do it. And if they were forced to do it, attacked people defended themselves anyway, because otherwise they'd get killed and robbed. Are you seriously suggesting that if in a story someone attacks someone else purely out of greed and cruelty -something that happened all the time and still happens in real world- there's an alignment system "sneaked in through the backdoor".

No, I'm saying that if you assume that every time someone attacks someone else out of "greed and cruelty" then you're sneaking an alignment system in through the back door. Nine times out of ten when somebody attacks somebody else it's out of desperation or a legitimate grievance.

The point is that people who are attacking and robbing others are not "evil people who need killing" they're just people. It's the moment you start to play the "needs killing" card that you're backdooring Alignment.

[Morty]

No, I'm saying that if you assume that every time someone attacks someone else out of "greed and cruelty" then you're sneaking an alignment system in through the back door. Nine times out of ten when somebody attacks somebody else it's out of desperation or a legitimate grievance.

What makes you say that? How can you know why is someone attacking you? You can't, but you fight him/her anyway, because otherwise that person would kill you. That's self-defense in a harsh world.
But seriously now, what makes you so sure that in 90% of cases the attacker is either justified or forced to attack?


The point is that people who are attacking and robbing others are not "evil people who need killing" they're just people. It's the moment you start to play the "needs killing" card that you're backdooring Alignment.

They're just people, right. However, they're people who want to kill you and rob you, so you're defending yourself. Or is self-defense backdooring alignment?

[Dan_Hemmens]

What makes you say that? How can you know why is someone attacking you? You can't but you kill him/her anyway, because otherwise that person would kill you. That's self-defense.
But seriously now, what makes you so sure that in 90% of cases the attacker is either justified or forced to attack?

How can you be so sure they aren't?

People don't *generally* go around attacking people for no reason. There's always *something* causing it. The IRA didn't go around blowing up London because they were teh evil, they did it because they wanted the English out of Northern Ireland. People with plenty of money of their own generally don't go around mugging people.


They're just people, right. However, they're people who want to kill you and rob you, so you're defending yourself. Or is self-defense backdooring alignment?

They almost certainly don't want to kill you. They probably just want your stuff. In this case it is arguable that morally it is better to give them your stuff without a fight than to kill them. Unless you really believe that your property is worth more than a human life.

If they're trying to kill you for no reason, then once again you've just arbitrarily invented an unambiguously evil antagonist and if you're going to do *that* for Pete's sake call it an Orc.

[Renegade Paladin]

I generally play it by reasonable logic. Being evil means you're a bad person deep down, nothing more. It doesn't mean you do evil things, it doesn't mean you can't lead a functional life, and it even doesn't mean you can't have friends, family, and loved ones. Killing a person for being "evil" is murder, just as much as killing someone for wearing white socks with black shoes. They have less scruples, yes, but they can have any number of reasons not to act accordingly.
If they're not being actively evil, then they won't have an evil alignment; you just described a fairly ill-tempered neutral being.

[Morty]

How can you be so sure they aren't?

They might be, they might not be. But if they're attacking me, my first thought is to defend myself.


People don't *generally* go around attacking people for no reason. There's always *something* causing it. The IRA didn't go around blowing up London because they were teh evil, they did it because they wanted the English out of Northern Ireland. People with plenty of money of their own generally don't go around mugging people.

Not every reason is good reason. Also, even if someone is poor, that person shouldn't rob other people, but rather work. Or at least ask for help in non-violent manner.


They almost certainly don't want to kill you. They probably just want your stuff. In this case it is arguable that morally it is better to give them your stuff without a fight than to kill them. Unless you really believe that your property is worth more than a human life.

If anyone attacked me, I'd obviously try to defend myself without killing the attacker. However, if someone is ready to kill me to get my stuff, I might have no choice but to kill that person in self-defense. If someone is forced to rob me because of poverty, I doubt that person would be ready to fight to death.


If they're trying to kill you for no reason, then once again you've just arbitrarily invented an unambiguously evil antagonist and if you're going to do *that* for Pete's sake call it an Orc.

As above. Not every reason is a good reason. Also, some people are just, well, bastards. It's a fact and it doesn't need an alignment system to be a fact. Lack of black-and-white moralty does not mean there are no people who are cruel SOBs who'll kill you or torment you because it's fun for them. Don't tell me you have never heard of them. Finally, what does it change if the unambigously evil bastard trying to kill me is a human or an orc? I don't know about you, but that doesn't make killing any less uncomfortable. And dediacting whole sentient species to the role of unambigously evil bastards is bad writing. If you want something PCs can kill without any moral implications, make it a beast that just wants to eat them.
All in all, my point is- sometimes there's moral ambiguity to the situation, sometimes there isn't. But the lack of alignment system does not make it harder to pull off the latter, while the presence of it hinders pulling off the former. You're right, that would prevent PCs from killing in many cases. But I don't think it's a bad thing.

[Kish]

If Voldemort wanted to kill all half-bloods why didn't he actually ... y'know ... do it?
He didn't want to kill half-bloods. He was one, as were many of his followers. He wanted to kill Muggle-borns, and he was actually having them rounded up. He also wanted to conquer the world, starting with Britain, and because of the prophecy he believed--correctly--that Harry was the only obstacle to him doing so and that no one could kill Harry but him.

That said, I have a lot of issues with the Harry Potter books, especially the last one. Just not the particular issues I responded to here.

[Dan_Hemmens]

They might be, they might not be. But if they're attacking me, my first thought is to defend myself.

Which is entirely reasonable.


Not every reason is good reason. Also, even if someone is poor, that person shouldn't rob other people, but rather work. Or at least ask for help in non-violent manner.

Not all poor people *can* work, if you've got no land you can't farm. Pleas for help often *do* fall on deaf ears (often because people don't have the resources to help).

In a world of scarcity there is competition for resources. That competition often gets violent.


If anyone attacked me, I'd obviously try to defend myself without killing the attacker. However, if someone is ready to kill me to get my stuff, I might have no choice but to kill that person in self-defense. If someone is forced to rob me because of poverty, I doubt that person would be ready to fight to death.

This is true, and again this is how I think D&D has to change to make "getting rid of alignment" anything more than a cosmetic alteration. If you keep meeting people who are willing to kill you for no clear reason, and who give you no choice but to kill them, I don't think you have much room for "moral ambiguity" there. Sure you're not calling them "evil" but they're still basically just hostile mobs you kill for the XP.


As above. Not every reason is a good reason. Also, some people are just, well, bastards. It's a fact and it doesn't need alignment system to be a fact. Lack of black-and-white moralty does not mean there are no people who are cruel SOBs. Finally, what does it change if the unambigously evil bastard trying to kill me is a human or an orc? I don't know about you, but that doesn't make killing any less uncomfortable. And dediacting whole species to the role of unambigously evil bastards is bad writing.

Either you have unambiguous evil or you don't. If you have unambiguous evil then you're dealing with an unrealistic world with a simplified moral system. You essentially have Alignment.

If you have unambiguous evil, there's nothing wrong with making it a race. That very clearly says "these are not supposed to be real people with real motivations, they are supposed to be monsters".


All in all, my point is- sometimes there's moral ambiguity to the situation, sometimes there isn't. But the lack of alignment system does not make it harder to pull off the latter, while the presence of it hinders pulling off the former.

There is never no moral ambiguity in a situation, the moment you take the ambiguity out of something, introduce Alignment.

The moment you put a PC in a situation in which somebody attacks them, for no reason, and fights to the death, you have destroyed any pretense of having a morally ambiguous or morally complex world.

[Dan_Hemmens]

He didn't want to kill half-bloods. He was one, as were many of his followers. He wanted to kill Muggle-borns, and he was actually having them rounded up.

Not very efficiently, he was spending most of his time being totally distracted by his ludicrous obsession with Potter. And he had no *reason* to want to kill Muggle-borns. He never seemed to believe any of his racist dogma, he just seemed to spout it in order to make himself seem more evil.


He also wanted to conquer the world, starting with Britain, and because of the prophecy he believed--correctly--that Harry was the only obstacle to him doing so and that no one could kill Harry but him.

His belief that Harry was the only obstacle to him taking over the world was not *remotely* correct, and neither was his belief that nobody else could kill Harry. In fact the very opposite was true. Anybody else could have killed Harry trivially, but Voldemort was magically prevented from doing so.

The point is that Voldemort always acts like Just Another BBEG, and never like somebody who is actually trying to achieve immortality while ushering in a new age of Wizard Supremacy. The Death Eaters, similarly, didn't seem to get anything out of working for Voldemort. They just seemed to be Evil Because. Very much like Orcs, in fact.

[Morty]

Not all poor people *can* work, if you've got no land you can't farm. Pleas for help often *do* fall on deaf ears (often because people don't have the resources to help).

In a world of scarcity there is competition for resources. That competition often gets violent.

That's true. But I don't see how that changes the situation. If someone poor came to me, I'd try to help them as much as I could at the moment. But if a poor person attacked me with a knife to take my wallet, I'd try to defend myself.


This is true, and again this is how I think D&D has to change to make "getting rid of alignment" anything more than a cosmetic alteration. If you keep meeting people who are willing to kill you for no clear reason, and who give you no choice but to kill them, I don't think you have much room for "moral ambiguity" there. Sure you're not calling them "evil" but they're still basically just hostile mobs you kill for the XP.

The real solve, I think, is to reserve sentient humanoid opponents for rare occasions and when players want to just mow through a dungeon, use undead, magical beasts, etc.
Also, you don't get XP for killing but rather for defeating challenges. And defeating does not have to mean killing.


Either you have unambiguous evil or you don't. If you have unambiguous evil then you're dealing with an unrealistic world with a simplified moral system. You essentially have Alignment.

Who says you can't have a world where some people are morally complex and some are just cruel bastards? I'm not making anything up, because what I'm describing here is essentially real world. You have people who have morals and won't kill anyone, people who kill and rob because they must, and you have people who kill and steal because it's easier for them to do that rather than work and uphold the law. See gangsters, assasins or corrupt politicians.


If you have unambiguous evil, there's nothing wrong with making it a race. That very clearly says "these are not supposed to be real people with real motivations, they are supposed to be monsters".

Then you should make it a monster, not a race. Orcs and goblins are sentient species capable of rational thought yet they're used as monsters. That's what bugs some people.


There is never no moral ambiguity in a situation, the moment you take the ambiguity out of something, introduce Alignment.

No, you don't. Again, sometimes people attack you because they want to rob you, they were paid to, or you got in their way. And some of those people have no qualms against killing you even if they don't have to because it's easier. It's, sadly, quite common in real life.


The moment you put a PC in a situation in which somebody attacks them, for no reason, and fights to the death, you have destroyed any pretense of having a morally ambiguous or morally complex world.

There's always a reason. However, sometimes this reason is because they want to rob you, or someone paid them to do so, as I said above.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That's true. But I don't see how that changes the situation. If someone poor came to me, I'd try to help them as much as I could at the moment. But if a poor person attacked me with a knife to take my wallet, I'd try to defend myself.

Which is fine, but would that person deserve to die?


The real solve, I think, is to reserve sentient humanoid opponents for rare occasions and when players want to just mow through a dungeon, use undead, magical beasts, etc.

That's not solving the problem, that's displacing the problem. You're still trying to put moral decisions into what then becomes a tactical wargame.


Also, you don't get XP for killing but rather for defeating challenges. And defeating does not have to mean killing.

In theory it doesn't, in practice it often does.


Who says you can't have a world where some people are morally complex and some are just cruel bastards? I'm not making anything up, because what I'm describing here is essentially real world. You have people who have morals and won't kill anyone, people who kill and rob because they must, and you have people who likk and steal because it's easier for them to do that rather than work and uphold the law. See gangsters, assasins or corrupt politicians.

Gangsters, assassins and corrupt politicians are not "just cruel bastards who kill and steal because it's easier for them". Gangs tend to start because people can't rely on the police for protection, so they take the law into their own hands. Assassins are just soldiers. Corrupt politicians are just politicians who listen to lobbyists you don't agree with.

If you truly believe that gangsters, say, are Evil in the "deserve to be killed" sense, why aren't you going into downtown LA with a sniper rifle and taking out anybody you see wearing gang colours?


Then you should make it a monster, not a race. Orcs and goblins are sentient species capable of rational thought yet they're used as monsters. That's what bugs some people.

They're a sentient race which is partially capable of rational thought, but which is inexorably drawn towards evil, violence, and chaos. They're monsters to be fought.


No, you don't. Again, someimes people attack you because they want to rob you, they were paid to, or you got in their way. And some people have no qualms against killing you even if they don't have to because it's easier. It's, sadly, quite common in real life.

No it isn't. Nobody kills without a good reason or a serious medical condition. Sometimes the reason doesn't make sense to *you* but that's what "moral ambiguity" *means*.

Nobody ever does anything just "because they're evil" and if you're going to have "evil" people in your world, you might as well just keep Alignment, because you're effectively using it.

[Dervag]

For all those farmers getting raided by hungry orcs, here's a tip:

Grow root crops like yams, potatoes, or turnips. You can leave them in the ground for long periods of time and dig them up only as needed, so you don't have a big granary for the orcs to raid. If the orcs want to steal your food, they're going to have to go out into the fields with shovels (and even then they only get a relative handful of edible roots). Or they have to stand there and wait while you do it (same problem).

This strategy has worked like a charm for some historical populations that were constantly being marginalized and heavily taxed by better-armed people. If Paddy O'Houlihan is growing grain, he has to store grain or flour, which means that someone can come by and steal it from him. If he grows potatoes, then hardly anyone is going to bother going around with a shovel to root them out, and they can't really make him root out enough to feed them without standing around for days or weeks while he does it for them.


...
If they're going to the trouble of running aroud my lands in the middle of the night trying to thresh grain with scythes, you're probably right, raiding does take more effort than normal farming. Hoeing and tilling is hard, of course, but the orcs are probably carrying their tools along with them every night, for nothing but small bags of raw grain.

You know what? If they're willing to go to that much trouble, I should probably hire them!

(Awkward silence.)Well, no, actually they'll be hitting the grain silo where you stored last year's harvest. Theory being, they can make you do the work of harvesting the grain, then carry a big old Santa Sack of it back to the village.

Of course, this is kind of foolish, because they'll have to eat a lot of the grain just marching back and forth to your village. And they won't have anyone to rob next month when all that grain is gone because you have now been reduced to a state of famine.

However, I can totally see the orcs hiring on as migrant workers.[/quote]



Let me see if I can put it a different way.

Suppose you have this group of people who raid your lands for the resources they need to survive. You kill the raiders, great, that's self-defence. You now have a bunch of women and children who can't defend themselves and
don't have enough food.

I'm not saying it's somehow "okay" to kill them or enslave them. I'm saying that it's no *more* "okay" to let them starve to death.Well, if similar historical scenarios are any guide, the culture usually does survive.

Some of the tribes weren't bold (or foolhardy) enough to go on this round of raids; tribes that have lost their warriors end up incorporated the tribes that haven't. Moreover, you probably didn't get all the warriors, since the raiders won't trust their neighbors enough to leave their homes totally unguarded while they go raiding.

Now, if the pattern of orcish tribes losing all their warriors is persistent (the orcs go raiding all the time, and they always lose), it won't take long before they are destroyed as a people and culture because others will be able to conquer their lands. But if the orcs lost all the time, rather than sometimes coming back with loot and captives, then they'd long since have either ceased to exist or ceased to raid. And either way you wouldn't be seeing them outside the village of Hamlet.


Now you could always conquer the Orcs, but what if they don't want to be ruled by you? If they rise up against you is it okay to kill them now? What if they want to carry on worshiping Grummsh, an objectively Evil deity? And how are you suddenly going to feed all these new subjects you have? Their land wasn't good enough to support them to begin with, that's why they were raiding you in the first place.It's impractical to raid for bulk food reserves anyway. Going long distances to steal food is self-defeating because your warriors will eat more marching to and from the target than they can bring back. This goes double for cultures that rely mainly on porters for transport.

Now, raiding for tools, or for the treasure to buy tools (or food) I can see. But the logistics of transportation in a quasimedieval society make it impossible for large numbers of orcs to stay alive by stealing food from every settlement in 50 miles. Either they are only raiding for high-value, easily portable goods, or the people they're raiding live practically next door to them, or they all starve even though they're raiding as hard as they can.

Think about historical raiding cultures. Those cultures practiced hunting and farming and herding that would keep them alive at least on a subsistence level. If they were well and truly hungry, it was much more efficient to send the warriors out hunting and gathering than to send them to rob another community (which would typically not be in much better shape). So I find the idea that orcs are an exception to this rule, being literally unable to feed themselves without raids and yet somehow manage to get enough food by raiding to survive, implausible.

Now, it may be that once in a while orc population density reaches a level where some of the orcs really do have to move elsewhere to find new land to settle, or they'll starve. This kind of population pressure is what produced the European expansion of the gunpowder era, for example.

But if so, then orc raids are going to be a periodic factor and not a constant one. When there are lots of orcs, there are lots of raids. The raiders either win and conquer some new territory, ending the raiding cycle for a few generations, or they lose and orc populations fall back to levels sustainable in their current territory, also ending the raiding cycle for a few generations.

In which case orc raids will happen every twenty or thirty years, much like the raids of historical 'barbarian' tribes.


We're not talking about all the tribe's hunters going off and getting themselves killed. We're talking about you, personally, deliberately going out and killing the tribe's hunters. This is apparently okay because they're armed.Well, if they were operating in warband strength and raiding you, then you were justified. Not because they are armed, but because they are raiding you. If you're talking about marching into the Orclands and killing every adult male you can find, then yes. That would be totally wrong, since a lot of those adult males never did anything to you and never would have.


So your people have enough resources to share with the Orcs, but you didn't consider letting them have anything until you'd already killed half of them?Well, they were apparently doing OK until they decided to start robbing me. They may have suddenly had a famine at that point, in which case I might well have shipped them some grain if they'd asked for help or offered some trade goods instead of sending an army to demand it at swordpoint. I don't think I'm morally remiss in defeating the hostile army.


3) The Orcs now magically learn new ways to find food for themselves, despite the fact that they are just recovering from the decimation of their population, and despite the fact that you have made no effort to help them find a sustainable alternative to raiding. Alternatively they just starve to death, and this is their fault because they pissed you off.Here's the kicker. If the orcs had no food of their own, they'd already be dead, because you can't gain a large net food profit by attacking other people, stealing their food, and carrying it back. That only works over very short distances in situations where it is very easy to beat the people guarding the food you want to steal.

For every thousand calories that Thog brings back to feed Thog, Jr., he has to do more than a thousand calories' worth of work. Unless, of course, the people's he's raiding vastly outnumber him. In which case he's going to lose anyway because nobody likes having their food stolen and they outnumber him.

So whatever Thog is trying to get from me, it isn't bulk foodstuffs, because orcs aren't stupid enough to try that more than once or twice. When they realize that their granaries are lower after the raid than before, they'll try hunting, gathering, or just plain moving instead.

Now, if Thog is trying to steal necessary supplies other than food, that means that the tribe isn't going to starve to death if he doesn't get back in a week with the expected amount of loot. In which case the tribe doesn't die out when I kill Thog and his fellow orc raiders. It may be conquered by another tribe, or it may be able to feed itself fine without all those big beefy warriors lounging around and going "where's my sandwich, woman?" all day. I don't know. But either way, the only way the tribe goes extinct when I beat its 'field army' is if they were pursuing an economic strategy that would have left them dead well before I was born.


4) If, eventually, the Orcs manage to rebuild their society to a level where they *might* be able to get themselves a better standard of living, you will again go and slaughter them back into the dark ages. This will again be *their* fault.Well, I wouldn't operate that way. If the orcs manage to reach a standard of living in ways that do not involve a zero-sum game played against my standard fo living, great. But I'm not willing to lose a zero-sum game for them, especially since that will leave me as bad off as the orcs were before they started raiding.


And if that's the view you hold of them, fine, then why are they listed as "evil". Why must something you disagree with have to be "evil." Pretty sure that's one of the root questions of the thread.Because a large percentage of orcs really are chaotic evil. This percentage is larger than the percentage of humans who hold any alignment, and so it's worth making a note in their Monster Manual entry. Not all orcs are chaotic evil, or even evil at all. Not by a long shot.

This proves that whatever the orcs are, they are not a race that is powered by an intrinsically evil force that warps all of them to evil, the way that demons or intelligent undead seem to be. So instead, they must be some kind of people, albeit huge, ugly, and slightly dimwitted people. But even huge, ugly, and slightly dimwitted people deserve the same basic degree of consideration that all people deserve. This consideration has limits. If a group of orcs go raiding other people's villages then those orcs deserve whatever they get. But if they stay at home minding their own business then it is a grotesque injustice to slaughter them for being members of the same species as the raiders.


But it does. Scorched Earth policies have been used all through out history. Now granted this isn't going to be one of the first things used, but for how long must the good village suffer through this before they've had enough and announce a "good" wide campaign to crush the evil out of the orks?
I didn't realize the Hundred Year war was modern, or Rome, or Greece or Scythians.I didn't, either. My point is that if you actually look at the details of their campaigns, you will find that none of them practiced mass slaughter of noncombatant populations except for, at most, a few very unusual campaigns that bothered people for centuries or millenia (like the destruction of Carthage).

Raiders that cause enormous destruction are a commonplace, but only a few societies have taken it to anything like the scale you describe. And, as I have said before, those societies (correctly) earned reputations as homicidal savages for doing it when they made a habit out of it. Like the Assyrians, they soon became the enemies of all others who lived.

Well, I have to confess I'm not sure about the Scythians, but the Scythians lived so long ago and in such an ill-documented environment that half our information about them may be complete fabrications anyway.


Okay, so we've established that it's more evil to kill than force your views on another through force. Can it be said that forcing your views on another is more GOOD than killing them?If forcing them not to try to kill you anymore qualifies as forcing your views on them, then absolutely.


They weren't supposed to, according to Lincolin's orders. Sherman on the other hand, had other ideas.So why did Sherman write the orders I quoted?


Mostly tales from Great grandpappy. There's a reason his name is still a profanity.


No they weren't stupid, that's why so many fled the region. Those that didn't wound up getting their 40 acres in lower Mississippi. Why we have the Delta Blues. :smallsmile:OK. So the slaves flee. Now, who's left? A handful of plantation owners (burned out of their mansions). A bunch of craftsmen and workers in the nascent industrial area around Atlanta (mostly burned out). Oh. And the majority of the white population in any Southern state- the farmers who raised the corn and hogs that kept everyone else alive while the factory workers were working in factories and the slaves were picking cotton.

Most of whom would not have been burned out, as per Sherman's orders. Unless, of course, they started shooting at soldiers, at which point ugly things have started happening in every army throughout history.

Your great-grandpappy may have been exaggerating things a bit; can I get some citations from professional historians please?


Scorched Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth) has been used through out history.Well, strictly speaking "scorched earth" is a defensive tactic, such as the Russians used against Napoleon to deny him any resources to forage while marching through Russia. But that detail can be put aside. Except for a few cases like Tamerlane (who rightly earned a reputation as a homicidal savage), commanders who practiced either offensive or defensive 'scorched earth' didn't kill all the people. They would destroy property, but not the population, and the result was that the region generally recovered from even the most destructive raids in a decade or so.


If good and evil is absolute, and you stand by and do nothing while evil is being committed, then you have to be evil. Because good has to stop it. Therefor good and evil can NOT be absolute in D&D or all orcs that live in the arch typical orc settlement must be evil.Or good can say "this evil is too strong for me, I'm running away and starting my own settlement."

And neutral can say just about anything; the vast majority of non-evil orcs in an orc setttlement will be neutral-aligned.


But I'm also being good.Why would it be good for you to do this if it would not be good for you to practice the same policies in a morally neutral-aligned state with a habit of attacking its neighbors?


Sadly that day wouldn't come unless you actually make them pay for their lifestyle. Just killing off a few here and there isn't going to drive home the point.True. Which is why equilibriums like this could last for hundreds of years in real life. If the orcs are too tough to kill off, or live on marginal land that is hard to attack and unrewarding to conquer, most nations will simply leave them alone as long as they aren't actively attacking you. Thus, no wars of annihilation.

[Morty]

Which is fine, but would that person deserve to die?

Most likely not. But not every person PCs fight is like that.


That's not solving the problem, that's displacing the problem. You're still trying to put moral decisions into what then becomes a tactical wargame.

No, because by putting non-sentient beasts instead of sentient humanoids I largely remove moral problems.


In theory it doesn't, in practice it often does.

True. But it's still an option for someone who doesn't want D&D games to involve too much killing.


Gangsters, assassins and corrupt politicians are not "just cruel bastards who kill and steal because it's easier for them". Gangs tend to start because people can't rely on the police for protection, so they take the law into their own hands.

It might be so, but equally if not more often they're just bullies who use their advantage or strenght and ruthlessnessness to scare people into paying them.


Assassins are just soldiers.

Not if they kill innocent people because they were paid to.


Corrupt politicians are just politicians who listen to lobbyists you don't agree with.

Are they? I was under the impression they're people who use their influence to advance their personal goals, or goals of those who pay them, even against the good of the country.


If you truly believe that gangsters, say, are Evil in the "deserve to be killed" sense, why aren't you going into downtown LA with a sniper rifle and taking out anybody you see wearing gang colours?

Because, apart from not knowing how to shoot I have qualms against killing people. However, in D&D I'm roleplaying a person that does not necesarrily have those qualms.


They're a sentient race which is partially capable of rational thought, but which is inexorably drawn towards evil, violence, and chaos. They're monsters to be fought.

No sentient race should be "inexorably drawn" to anything, because not only it makes no sense, but we end up with morally dubious situation.


No it isn't. Nobody kills without a good reason or a serious medical condition. Sometimes the reason doesn't make sense to *you* but that's what "moral ambiguity" *means*.

No offense, but are you serious? You've never heard of people who kill for money or because it's easier that way or because they're paid to? That's good enough reason for them, that makes them bastards, but they exist.


Nobody ever does anything just "because they're evil" and if you're going to have "evil" people in your world, you might as well just keep Alignment, because you're effectively using it.

No, I'm not. Just because some people in a setting are just flat out sick, cruel, heartless etc. does not mean there's alignment at work.
Honestly, I really don't understand your argument. You claim there are never morally unambigous situations which I largely agree with, but that is actually an argument against alignment.
My argument against alignment is that it introduces rigid, objective moralty while very few situations are morally unambigous and not always one side is right and other wrong.

[Athaniar]

Here is one thing I believe: nobody sees themselves as "evil". Evil is a label applied by people who sees themselves as "good". What is unbelievable even for a fantasy setting is someone who sees him/her/itself as evil. That is why the alignment system does not work.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No offense, but are you serious? You've never heard of people who kill for money or because it's easier that way or because they're paid to? That's good enough reason for them, that makes them bastards, but they exist.

I really, honestly, don't believe that killing for money is *easier* than getting a job. Killing for money is dangerous and can land you in prison.

Furthermore *soldiers* kill for money. And for love of country, of course, but the point is that just getting paid for killing people doesn't make you evil. If it did, Adventurers would be in a very difficult situation.


No, I'm not. Just because some people in a setting are just flat out sick, cruel, heartless etc. does not mean there's alignment at work.

Yes it does. The moment you declare that one single person in your world is "just Evil" - particularly if you use that to justify killing them - you're bringing back Alignment by another name. And worse, you're pretending that it's moral ambiguity.


Honestly, I really don't understand your argument. You claim there are never morally unambigous situations which I largely agree with, but that is actually an argument against alignment.

I never said otherwise. I simply said that the moment you *do* introduce a morally unambiguous situation, particularly a situation in which the unambiguously morally right thing to do is to kill a bunch of people, you're effectively bringing Alignment back into the mix.


My argument against alignment is that it introduces rigid, objective moralty while very few situations are morally unambigous and not always one side is right and other wrong.

Which is more or less my argument as well. It's just that you seem to keep saying that some people are jus' plain evil and need killin'.


Here is one thing I believe: nobody sees themselves as "evil". Evil is a label applied by people who sees themselves as "good". What is unbelievable even for a fantasy setting is someone who sees him/her/itself as evil. That is why the alignment system does not work.

For a realistic world, I absolutely agree with you. I don't always want my worlds to be realistic, however.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, if similar historical scenarios are any guide, the culture usually does survive.

Some of the tribes weren't bold (or foolhardy) enough to go on this round of raids; tribes that have lost their warriors end up incorporated the tribes that haven't. Moreover, you probably didn't get all the warriors, since the raiders won't trust their neighbors enough to leave their homes totally unguarded while they go raiding.

Now, if the pattern of orcish tribes losing all their warriors is persistent (the orcs go raiding all the time, and they always lose), it won't take long before they are destroyed as a people and culture because others will be able to conquer their lands. But if the orcs lost all the time, rather than sometimes coming back with loot and captives, then they'd long since have either ceased to exist or ceased to raid. And either way you wouldn't be seeing them outside the village of Hamlet.


I think we've been talking at cross purposes here. I certainly wouldn't say that there was anything wrong with fighting off a band of Orcs who attack you, nor do I think that there's anything particularly wrong with saying "Sorry, but if somebody's got to starve to death, I'd rather it was your people and not mine."

The situation I had imagined from the OP, though was something more like this:

- Village is raided by Orcs.
- Village hires adventurers to "put a stop to Orc raids".
- Adventurers go out into the wilderness where they encounter wave after wave of Orcs, all of whom obligingly leap to their deaths under their swords.
- Adventurers finally reach Orc Village, have pitched battle with Orc Warriors and Chief. Having exterminated everybody capable of holding a weapon, they are left with Orcish women and children.

At this point you've shafted said Orc Village so badly that there actually *isn't* much difference between killing the women and children there and then, and leaving them to starve now that you've - presumably - killed all the able-bodied men. Slaughtering the women and children is distasteful, but they're basically screwed whatever you do.

Either way, you're not being *heroes*, you're being *mercenaries*.

[Athaniar]

I don't need to have my worlds "realistic", as long as they are "believable". I like ridiculous magic as much as the next guy. And dragons. Don't forget the dragons.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I don't need to have my worlds "realastic", as long as they are "believable". I like ridiculous magic as much as the next guy. And dragons. Don't forget the dragons.

Sorry, bad choice of words, I meant "realistic in terms of the absolute nature of morality". Perhaps "naturalistic" would have been a better way to put it.

[Dervag]

The situation I had imagined from the OP, though was something more like this:

- Village is raided by Orcs.
- Village hires adventurers to "put a stop to Orc raids".
- Adventurers go out into the wilderness where they encounter wave after wave of Orcs, all of whom obligingly leap to their deaths under their swords.
- Adventurers finally reach Orc Village, have pitched battle with Orc Warriors and Chief. Having exterminated everybody capable of holding a weapon, they are left with Orcish women and children.The original post was about orcs in general, not about one orc in particular, so you could be right.

Frankly, I wouldn't set up an adventure where it was possible for the heroes to kill all the orcs of a given tribe or village. Some of the warriors will realize that the PCs are bad medicine and retreat from the area, for instance.


At this point you've shafted said Orc Village so badly that there actually *isn't* much difference between killing the women and children there and then, and leaving them to starve now that you've - presumably - killed all the able-bodied men. Slaughtering the women and children is distasteful, but they're basically screwed whatever you do.

Either way, you're not being *heroes*, you're being *mercenaries*.That depends heavily on:
a)The assumption that all the orcs die in place, and
b)The assumption that orc dependents are incapable of feeding themselves and that they are equally incapable of appealing to another group of orcs (or non-orcs) to take them in, as would typically happen when this kind of thing occured in real life.

I do not apply either of these assumptions. However, if the assumptions apply and the scenario is as you describe, then I think you are basically correct.

So no, I do not believe that it is OK to kill orc dependents because they are members of an "often chaotic evil" species. I don't even believe that it's OK to kill orc warriors because they are members of an "often chaotic evil" species. First because some of them, even many of them, are not chaotic evil, and second because as long as they aren't bothering anyone else it's none of my bloody business what their alignment is.

However, if I encounter orc warriors in territories that are not part of the core Orclands, given the fact that orcs as I know them practice a raiding culture, I see no reason why I should not attack the orc warriors on sight unless they give some sign that they are out of the ordinary (such as being unarmed or carrying a flag of truce).

In fact, that's why things like flags of truce exist, and existed in medieval times- because there were situations where one armed warrior would normally attack another on sight. In those situations, it's helpful to have a symbol that says "Hi. I'm not here to attack you, could you please return the favor?" that doesn't rely on one party or the other having to agree to dangerous negotations with a possible enemy.

[Frosty]

In my games, Orcs definitely can grow their own foodstuffs and do not need to raid to survive. Druid spells are very handy in feeding people. They do go out and steal sometimes...but that is no different than how some humans go out and steal. If there is a warband about, they would be out and about for some reason internally consistent with their own culture that probably does not involve feeding their own people because it's a stupid way to feed a tribe.

I reject a lot of the basic premises in the MM regarding orcs, considering it stupid. Going strictly by the MM, I'd probably go with the "re-education" option for those orcs that fullow Gruumsh's teachings.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The original post was about orcs in general, not about one orc in particular, so you could be right.

Frankly, I wouldn't set up an adventure where it was possible for the heroes to kill all the orcs of a given tribe or village. Some of the warriors will realize that the PCs are bad medicine and retreat from the area, for instance.

Fair enough. I think we're basically on the same page here, it's just a question of what the actual consequences of a PC attack will be, and whether the Orcs in question will all starve to death, or just disband and join other Orc bands.


In fact, that's why things like flags of truce exist, and existed in medieval times- because there were situations where one armed warrior would normally attack another on sight. In those situations, it's helpful to have a symbol that says "Hi. I'm not here to attack you, could you please return the favor?" that doesn't rely on one party or the other having to agree to dangerous negotations with a possible enemy.

Of course this is *exactly* the sort of "rule of war" which the MM *specifically* says that Orcs "only respect while it is convenient for them".

[Morty]

I really, honestly, don't believe that killing for money is *easier* than getting a job. Killing for money is dangerous and can land you in prison.

Yet some people belive it. Which is all that matters for them and, of course, people they kill.


Furthermore *soldiers* kill for money. And for love of country, of course, but the point is that just getting paid for killing people doesn't make you evil. If it did, Adventurers would be in a very difficult situation.

Killing is, I belive, evil all in itself. It might be neutral in certain circumstances, like self-defense for example. From modern real-world perspective, that is. In a fantasy world where various threats emerge from time to time, it may be different- after all, many good heroes kill a lot of people. This, of course, is yet another problem with alignment system- it doesn't take perspective into equation.


Yes it does. The moment you declare that one single person in your world is "just Evil" - particularly if you use that to justify killing them - you're bringing back Alignment by another name. And worse, you're pretending that it's moral ambiguity.

You keep missing my point, which is that noone is "just Evil", just that some people choose to act in utterly Evil way, while D&D alignment system encourages the opposite. I'd be grateful if you didn't try to make me look like ruthless bastard.


I never said otherwise. I simply said that the moment you *do* introduce a morally unambiguous situation, particularly a situation in which the unambiguously morally right thing to do is to kill a bunch of people, you're effectively bringing Alignment back into the mix.

And that is a reason to bring in Alignment rules and therefore make all situations unambigous? Also, killing is never morally right. It's just that sometimes there's no other choice, seeing as you're playing in a world where demons and dragons appear from time to time.


Which is more or less my argument as well. It's just that you seem to keep saying that some people are jus' plain evil and need killin'.

Huh? I said no such thing, not intentionally at least. My whole argument from the start was that even without alignment, it's possible to introduce situations when PCs don't have any choice except to fight to death. Those situations might even include evil to the core Dark Horde. But, as I said, you don't need alignment to do this.

[horseboy]

Which is fine, but would that person deserve to die?
Yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in HELL!!!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[EvilElitest]

If good and evil is absolute, and you stand by and do nothing while evil is being committed, then you have to be evil. Because good has to stop it. Therefor good and evil can NOT be absolute in D&D or all orcs that live in the arch typical orc settlement must be evil.

Read the PHB on Good and Evil, they are absolute in terms of the definition


Well, that depends on if in your settings gods can't exist without followers. A common theme. Also, for when it's not, that's when the dwarven and elven pantheon step in and finish the job.No, the orcs that aren't evil are now my minions.
Not a justification to slaughter innocents


But I'm also being good.

Ends don't justify the means



Sadly that day wouldn't come unless you actually make them pay for their lifestyle. Just killing off a few here and there isn't going to drive home the point.
And committing a genocide simple makes your whole force evil

wouldn't be surprised at *all* how racists justify their actions. In fact, that's my entire point.


The thing is that all the talk racists use to justify their actions actually *would* justify their actions if it were true. All of the things people said about black people, native Americans, aboriginal Australians and the like are literally true of Orcs.

In the real world, there was nothing wrong with Native American society, and the European Settlers should have left them alone and let them keep their land, instead of wiping them out like rats. In D&D, Orcish society is literally evil.

That isn't a justification for evil and yet again Often Chaotic Evil


Suppose you have this group of people who raid your lands for the resources they need to survive. You kill the raiders, great, that's self-defence. You now have a bunch of women and children who can't defend themselves and
don't have enough food.

I'm not saying it's somehow "okay" to kill them or enslave them. I'm saying that it's no *more* "okay" to let them starve to death.
yeah it is, because you aren't doing anything to them. They attacked you with their warriors, and their warriors died when you defended themselves. You aren't doing anything other than defending yourself. You might send a high level PC to ask if they want to surrender and serve under you, but actively oppress and wipe them out, then you are pretty much just as bad

Hell, Demented pretty much covered this



We're not talking about all the tribe's hunters going off and getting themselves killed. We're talking about you, personally, deliberately going out and killing the tribe's hunters. This is apparently okay because they're armed
Um, no, no its not.


Also: Hunting doesn't require less effort than farming. Farming has massively, massively higher rewards than hunting. That's why people have farms. If you are *killing the people* who allow the Orcs to *feed themselves* then you are **condemning them to death**.

If they attacked you first, and you killed them, then wow, that sucks for them.


Again, it seems monstrously convenient to me that slaughtering half of their population will make them "like you".
they attacked you first, and you gave them food despite that, so yeah.


) In order to stop the raids, you attack the orcs and kill everybody who takes up a weapon against you.

wrong, if i do this i'm already evil. I slaughter the orcs who attack me directly


Yes. Killing Good creatures is an Evil act. Killing Evil creatures is a Good act. That's how Alignment works.

No, that is not how it works, being evil does not mean you need to be smitten. The book of exalted deeds is very clear on this, killing an innocent evil person is still evil

Yes, that's how alignment works. And that's why I hate it.
No that isn't how aligment works, killing innocent evil people is still evil
Lord Xavuis, Don't let Dan's definition of alignment sway your judgment, he is sadly wrong on a few points. Alignment doesn't really limit role playing really, or morality for that matter

And dan, please watch the double posting

from
EE

[Miles Invictus]

Dammit...I stop posting for one day and the thread nearly doubles in size.


Yes, that's my point, orcs aren't a realistic portrayal of a race.

I agree; that's what I've been trying to convey.


I reject a lot of the basic premises in the MM regarding orcs, considering it stupid.

Likewise. My orcs are technically antagonists, but they have legitimate reasons for their behavior.

[Dervag]

Fair enough. I think we're basically on the same page here, it's just a question of what the actual consequences of a PC attack will be, and whether the Orcs in question will all starve to death, or just disband and join other Orc bands.Yeah.


Of course this is *exactly* the sort of "rule of war" which the MM *specifically* says that Orcs "only respect while it is convenient for them".On the other hand, it's more or less always convenient for them to respect certain rules of war, because getting a reputation as people who use the flag of truce to set ambushes, or who attack heralds, is really bad for you. Remember the Assyrians.

Orcs who routinely violate certain laws of war will get a lot more heat than orcs who don't, so the orcs will have an incentive to abide by certain rules rather than trying to profit from abusing them once.

Now, that doesn't mean they'll respect all the things that some cultures call 'rules of war', which will give those cultures the impression that the orcs are deliberately breaking the rules when convenient. For example, orcs might not feel obliged to let warriors surrender, or to treat them with respect when they do. Conversely, they might not expect to be given quarter or to be respected if they try to surrender.

But some customs make so much sense that they really do become customs, simply because a generation or two of smart leaders locks them in and subsequent generations of stupid leaders who try to break them get flattened for doing so. And even orcs have customs.

[Vexxation]

*stuff*
No, that is not how it works, being evil does not mean you need to be smitten. The book of exalted deeds is very clear on this, killing an innocent evil person is still evil

*otherstuff*

Innocent.. evil... person?

How, pray tell, does one who is innocent become classified as evil?
That boggles my mind.

Also: In the case of the now-defenseless orc village where you mercilessly killed every warrior they have, you have four choices:

You can give them food, making them hate you less. Not like you, you still killed their friends and family. But less hateful. Maybe now they'll only try to kill you, instead of your entire village.

Or you could personally slay each and every one of them. Gruesome, but there's more EXP and gold in it. Plus, you got rid of some orcs who you can pretend were evil and maybe get a reward.

Third choice is to just abandon them. They might make it, they might not. Darwin's Law. Screw 'em.

Fourth, and my favorite, you make a deal where, as long as they promise to play nice, you allow them to join your town and put all nastiness aside. Then, if one breaks the law, institute an exile. Bye-bye, Mr. Troublemaker. Go orc somewhere else.

Abandoning them would be Evil. Or maybe neutral. But it's still just... wrong. So is killing. No necessarily evil, because they're still members of a society that attacked you. But it should certainly give a Paladin second thoughts, perhaps even cause a fall. Giving them food is still neutral, because of the hole, "give a man a fish..." thing. I'd say only the last option is actually good.

But seriously. Where does an innocent evil person exist?

[Morty]

Where does an innocent evil person exist?

Well, for starters, there might be a person who is generally a selfish bastard, but haven't done anything to deserve to die and is still redeemable.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yeah.

On the other hand, it's more or less always convenient for them to respect certain rules of war, because getting a reputation as people who use the flag of truce to set ambushes, or who attack heralds, is really bad for you. Remember the Assyrians.

I think you're absolutely right, but I don't think that's the implication carried by the description. The description fairly explicitly cites "truces" as one of the things which Orcs can't be relied upon to respect.

Again, this is obviously stupid if we consider Orcs to be a rational race of sentient beings with an interest in their own self-preservation, and the continued survival of their race, but that's not how they're presented in the actual game.

[Thane of Fife]

Sheerly for reference, the 2nd edition MM specified that orcs would fire upon those approaching with a white flag, unless their leader thought listening would be advantageous.

And that was when they were still Lawful Evil.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, for starters, there might be a person who is generally a selfish bastard, but haven't done anything to deserve to die and is still redeemable.

I think there's a fairly fundamental disconnect here between those of us who see "selfish bastard" as being textbook neutral, and those who see it as evil.

As far as I'm concerned, "selfish" is neutral. If it *isn't* then neutral really has nowhere to go. Either you're altruistic and therefore good, or selfish and therefore evil, what's the middle ground?

[Morty]

I think there's a fairly fundamental disconnect here between those of us who see "selfish bastard" as being textbook neutral, and those who see it as evil.

As far as I'm concerned, "selfish" is neutral. If it *isn't* then neutral really has nowhere to go. Either you're altruistic and therefore good, or selfish and therefore evil, what's the middle ground?

Well, there's neutral selfish and evil selfish, I think. Someone who's "selfish" as in "not altruistic" is neutral- after all, not everyone needs to be a saint. But someone who's "selfish" as in "won't help anyone and will in fact take advantage of someone's difficult situation" is evil.
The point is, if Good and Evil titles are reserved for people either very noble or cruel SOBs respectively, then 80% of population is going to end up neutral.

[Citizen Joe]

Well, the problem is that you think neutrality exists. It doesn't. Neutral just means you're not aligned with good or evil or law or chaos.

There is also the question of defining evil as just intent or just results.

The end result is about 15 new alignment threads a week and three pages of 'discussion' every day all of which saying the same thing.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, there's neutral selfish and evil selfish, I think. Someone who's "selfish" as in "not altruistic" is neutral- after all, not everyone needs to be a saint. But someone who's "selfish" as in "won't help anyone and will in fact take advantage of someone's difficult situation" is evil.
The point is, if Good and Evil titles are reserved for people either very noble or cruel SOBs respectively, then 80% of population is going to end up neutral.

But in that case, how can an evil person count as "innocent"? If they're cruel, callous, manipulative bastards, they aren't really "innocent" are they? Just because they happen not to have killed anybody yet.

[Morty]

But in that case, how can an evil person count as "innocent"? If they're cruel, callous, manipulative bastards, they aren't really "innocent" are they? Just because they happen not to have killed anybody yet.

Right. And they aren't guaranteed to kill anybody. They might never kill anybody even if they're evil simply because they fear law enforcement. But whatever the reason, they do nothing destructive, even though they might want to. Also, my point was that not every evil person is "cruel, callous and manipulative". There are small-scale evil people.

[Citizen Joe]

Innocent Evil -> Defense Lawyer

[Miles Invictus]

I think there's a fairly fundamental disconnect here between those of us who see "selfish bastard" as being textbook neutral, and those who see it as evil.

As far as I'm concerned, "selfish" is neutral. If it *isn't* then neutral really has nowhere to go. Either you're altruistic and therefore good, or selfish and therefore evil, what's the middle ground?

Here's my take on it:
Selfishness as "not generous" is neutral.
Selfishness as "take what you want, regardless of how it hurts others" is evil.
Selfishness as "never lift a finger to help another person, but never do anything that would hurt anyone" is a bit trickier to adjudicate. I would call them neutral-with-evil-tendencies, and expect them to eventually become evil.


Sheerly for reference, the 2nd edition MM specified that orcs would fire upon those approaching with a white flag, unless their leader thought listening would be advantageous.

And that was when they were still Lawful Evil.

Unless the orcs expect some kind of backstabbery, I can't see how listening could possibly be less advantageous than opening fire. I think the designers were trying to have it both ways -- allowing the players to negotiate with orcs without admitting that they can, in fact, be negotiated with.

[Lupy]

Killing something on sight caused the Cataclysm... Anyone ever read Time of the Twins?

[Dervag]

I think you're absolutely right, but I don't think that's the implication carried by the description. The description fairly explicitly cites "truces" as one of the things which Orcs can't be relied upon to respect.

Again, this is obviously stupid if we consider Orcs to be a rational race of sentient beings with an interest in their own self-preservation, and the continued survival of their race, but that's not how they're presented in the actual game.Here's where I come from on this, borrowing very heavily from the "Races of War" stuff done by the guys who created the Dungeonomicon.

Orcs tend to lose wars, on average, because while they're great fighters they're not very good strategists and they aren't well organized. So while sometimes the orcs win a war and conquer territory, it is more likely that they are defeated and forced to cede territory. The practical result is that orcs end up living in areas that nobody else really wants to live in, or that nobody else has the right kind of lifestyle to live in. For example, if the orcs are herdsmen and the other species are farmers, then the orcs can live in arid grasslands that would be 'uninhabitable' for humans (sort of like the Mongols).

So the orcs live in marginal territory and have periodic Malthusian population booms that drive them to launch WAAAGH! invasions of the surrounding lands in hopes of capturing more territory. Not so much because they'll begin to starve in three weeks if the warriors don't bring back food as because they'll begin to starve in three years if the village doesn't find some prime bottomland and farm tools. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. But whether it works or not, this places some constraints on orc warfighting.

Orcs don't have a good logistics trail, because the come from areas where it takes very nearly one orc to make enough food to feed one orc. They can't afford to camp outside a dwarven fortress for six months and starve them out.

Orcs don't have a steady stream of replacement troops. The guys they send on a raid represent just about every competent warrior they can spare from the immediate need to protect their home from local threats. They can't really afford to fight a war of attrition, especially at unfavorable odds, because if they do they will lose. They can take casualties, and that's fine for them (maybe even more than fine- fewer mouths to feed). But if they're taking a steady stream of casualties for a long period without clearly winning the war they will be in trouble.

Add those two factors together and you begin to see why orcs don't follow all the same rules of war that humans or elves or dwarves might. Orcs can't afford to keep a swarm of prisoners unless those prisoners feed themselves- so if you get captured by orcs, you will most likely be killed or enslaved.

Orcs may honor a cease-fire, but they aren't likely to honor a long cease-fire because they can't afford it. They have no time or patience to wait a week, so if they agree to a cease-fire for a week it's probably because they're planning to use that week to their advantage to win the war.

On the other hand, orcs gain nothing from attacking a messenger under flag of truce- because the messenger may very well be carrying surrender terms or other valuable information. Likewise, orcs gain nothing from using their messengers under flag of truce as a vehicle for a ruse, because the tradition of 'flag of truce' is already fenced in with traditions and precautions that make it hard to use it that way. One or two orcs under flag of truce aren't going to be able to ambush an entire army.

So messengers under flag of truce, which is what I was talking about originally, are an example of a rule of war that it's always, or almost always, convenient for orcs to follow.


Sheerly for reference, the 2nd edition MM specified that orcs would fire upon those approaching with a white flag, unless their leader thought listening would be advantageous.

And that was when they were still Lawful Evil.I believe that, but I would feel compelled to cut out that fluff simply because I refuse to believe orcs are that stupid. Unless they have a long history of messengers sent to them being elvish/human/dwarven tricks, or unless they almost always conclude that it is to their advantage to find out what a messenger has to say, they're not going to shoot messengers pre-emptively.

[Thane of Fife]

I believe that, but I would feel compelled to cut out that fluff simply because I refuse to believe orcs are that stupid.

Aaah, but are they being stupid, or being bright? Traditionally, orcs thing violence and slaughter are fun.

I bet that the idea of having the entire world descend upon your tribe with the intention of whiping it from existence is the orcish idea of a rip-snortin' good time.

After all, if they weren't interested in violence, they wouldn't name their tribes things like "Bloody Head, Broken Bone, Evil Eye" (also from 2e MM).

[Rutee]

Aaah, but are they being stupid, or being bright? Traditionally, orcs thing violence and slaughter are fun.

I bet that the idea of having the entire world descend upon your tribe with the intention of whiping it from existence is the orcish idea of a rip-snortin' good time.

After all, if they weren't interested in violence, they wouldn't name their tribes things like "Bloody Head, Broken Bone, Evil Eye" (also from 2e MM).

I don't think they like being the /recipients/ of violence and slaughter, but their /perpetrators/. Only the stupid deliberately cause fights they believe they'll lose with no tangible benefit.

[puppyavenger]

I don't think they like being the /recipients/ of violence and slaughter, but their /perpetrators/. Only the stupid deliberately cause fights they believe they'll lose with no tangible benefit.

as in a int 1 animal won't do it.

[Dervag]

Aaah, but are they being stupid, or being bright? Traditionally, orcs thing violence and slaughter are fun.

I bet that the idea of having the entire world descend upon your tribe with the intention of whiping it from existence is the orcish idea of a rip-snortin' good time.

After all, if they weren't interested in violence, they wouldn't name their tribes things like "Bloody Head, Broken Bone, Evil Eye" (also from 2e MM).They may really enjoy violence (or, at least, some of them do and the minority who don't are marginalized as wimps). But that doesn't mean they're totally out of their minds collectively. I mean, if orcs were at war with everyone, all the time the way this implies, then they wouldn't have much of a life expectancy. Like the Assyrians, the best they could hope for would be a brief run of dominance followed by total destruction as a coherent culture.

Now, if you want to rule that orcs have only existed for a few hundred years (maybe Gruumsh made them recently...), or that there are powerful supernatural or natural barriers protecting the orcish core territory from retaliation, I'll buy that.

But I like to think about D&D worlds that start out in equilibrium, with all the major intelligent species having been around for hundreds of years and likely to remain in existence for hundreds of years. If anything happens, that thing will be an exception, some kind of disturbance in the equilibrium of the world. And there's no way for orcs to be engaged in a constant war and still be in stable equilibrium.

So orcs have to have some kind of customs and culture that at least allow them to live at peace with their neighbors, temporarily, while they build up their strength for the next campaign. Which suggests that even for orcs, high intensity wars are a rare event. There may be nearly constant low level conflict (a half dozen orcs take it into their head to steal a few cows or kidnap one or two slaves from the nearby village). But wars in which a large percentage of an orcish tribe might be killed, or in which human villages might be forced to pack up and flee, are going to be relatively rare. It simply isn't possible for a humanoid species that has roughly the same reproductive cycle as humans* to survive otherwise, because their population will be killed off faster than it can be replenished.

*As in, does not breed so quickly that each generation is, say, four or five years long.


asa in an int 1 animal won't do it."asa?"

Well, while I don't know what that means, I think I understand your argument.

An Intelligence 1 animal probably won't attack for the fun of it because it doesn't have enough intelligence to do things for fun anyway. Such creatures operate mainly on a large set of instinctive behaviors and what we might call 'programming'. The programming is complex and very flexible compared to human computer standards, but it is essentially programmed.

Since those behaviors are more or less inborn, they are subject to evolution. And since creatures who love to fight so much that they do it when they don't need to tend to get hurt, creatures with genes that 'program' them to do that will tend to get killed before they reproduce. Creatures that fight only for a reason such as to kill prey or to compete over mates will tend to win out in the evolutionary arms race, because they're less likely to die in random brawls.

Unintelligent creatures will certainly fight a lot to establish dominance, but once the dominance structure is in place the violence dies down- if Al Alpha has convincingly proven his status among the herd, Bob Beta isn't going to contest that unless he thinks Al has started to lose his edge.

In an intelligent (and I use the term loosely), the increased chance of attracting mates by being a successful fighter can offset the fact that one is getting into random dangerous brawls. But nonintelligent creatures won't generally recognize this kind of thing, so it doesn't work very well on them.

Therefore, I would actually expect to see more belligerence in muscular species with members whose average intelligence is very low (like ogres, whose average intelligence is 6) than in either more intelligent species (like humans) or in animals. Obviously, these creatures are designed or evolved to be big and strong, and to succeed (both genetically and on a day-to-day basis) by being big and strong enough to beat up their rivals. So they fight a lot, sometimes when they don't need to.*

But creatures that dumb aren't going to have much of a society as we'd recognize it. They're going to live like cavemen, because even though they can talk and use technology, most of them aren't smart enough to handle complex social structures. Since they're naturally big and tough, when they find a social structure they can't handle their first instinct is to try to break it. And there won't be enough intelligent ogres to restrain the stupid ones, so anything the smart ogres put together tends to get destroyed by the dumb ogres.

Whereas orcs are intelligent enough that most of them can live in society without a keeper. They may not be as good at it, and they may have a higher percentage of people who think with their fists, but they aren't as crippled by their Int penalty as ogres are. Therefore, orcs will tend to have at least some kind of working social structure and system of customs.

*Note: I know that humans with low intelligence aren't always, or even often, belligerent. But such humans typically suffer from some kind of mental disability or profound lack of education in how to survive in their society. They aren't representative samples of the human species. Whereas an ogre with an intelligence of 6 is a normal ogre, not an especially ignorant or stupid ogre. An entire species that gets by that way, in a world with so many other more intelligent species, has to have another edge. And that edge is probably muscle. So an ogre is going to be more violent than a human with identical non-physical characteristics, purely by instinct.

[Frosty]

Again, this is obviously stupid if we consider Orcs to be a rational race of sentient beings with an interest in their own self-preservation, and the continued survival of their race, but that's not how they're presented in the actual game.

But that is how we should present orcs as. Leave the irredeemably evil races to the Outsiders made up of pure chaos and evil or something.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But that is how we should present orcs as. Leave the irredeemably evil races to the Outsiders made up of pure chaos and evil or something.

That's how you choose to present Orcs in your game. That's how I might sometimes choose to present Orcs in *my* game. Sometimes I just go all out Lord of the Rings.

"Should" isn't really in play here.

[Dervag]

That's how you choose to present Orcs in your game. That's how I might sometimes choose to present Orcs in *my* game. Sometimes I just go all out Lord of the Rings.

"Should" isn't really in play here."Should" is in play if and only if we all agree on a standard by which to evaluate the things we put in our fictional worlds.

For example, if we all agree that our worlds should be logical, steady-state ones that could plausibly keep working in more or less the same way for eons, then we really should present orcs in a way that doesn't logically lead to them being wiped out as a species by the combined forces of "everyone else in the world." In which case we need orcs to have roughly the same kind of motives and behaviors as human raiding cultures. They're not insane, they do have some 'law of war' customs that they actually honor all or nearly all the time, and they seem to fight dirty to other species because they need to win the war in a hurry and they aren't interested in fighting a species like the dwarves or the elves on those species' terms (which are very unfavorable to the orcs). They may be driven to continue their cycle of raiding, atrocities, and evil by malevolent supernatural beings, but they have reasons for all the things they do and they are capable of living at peace with their neighbors at least some of the time. They're not crazy.

Whereas if you want your world to be this constantly revolving lava lamp of change, with new species and threats being introduced on a regular basis, things are different. The cosmic lava lamp may actually make sense. Remember, in D&D cosmology the universe we know (the Prime Material) is a battleground between lots of powerful and competent supernatural beings who are always looking for a new edge and who are quite capable of spawning entire intelligent species in a short period of time. Moreover, the main powerhouses of a D&D universe are high-level characters, and an entirely new generation of high-level D&D characters can emerge to rock the world every year or two (in theory, every three months or so). There aren't any long-lasting stable institutions because it only takes about a year or so for low-level foot soldiers with a bit of luck to become superpowered behemoths that can destroy that institution.

In such a world, it may well be that the orcs have only existed for a generation or two, and that they really were created by some powerful being to serve as a race of homicidally savage shock troops. In which case it makes a lot of sense for them to commit atrocities even when it doesn't profit them, to pre-emptively shoot the messenger, and to acknowledge no truce with their neighbors.

As long as you accept the logical conclusion that unless the orcs vastly outnumber everyone else, they're going to lose in the long run, because even other evil species will gang up on them. And their gods are probably smart enough to know this, even if they don't.

[Dan_Hemmens]

"Should" is in play if and only if we all agree on a standard by which to evaluate the things we put in our fictional worlds.

For example, if we all agree that our worlds should be logical, steady-state ones that could plausibly keep working in more or less the same way for eons, then we really should present orcs in a way that doesn't logically lead to them being wiped out as a species by the combined forces of "everyone else in the world."

Oh absolutely, but that's a pretty big "if". There's also nothing wrong with presenting your Orcs as Tolkein presented his: fell servants of darkness who dwell in the blasted shadows of your world (with no arable land or plausible means of feeding themselves) in service to the Dark Lord.

[Frosty]

Oh absolutely, but that's a pretty big "if". There's also nothing wrong with presenting your Orcs as Tolkein presented his: fell servants of darkness who dwell in the blasted shadows of your world (with no arable land or plausible means of feeding themselves) in service to the Dark Lord.

I have those people. I call them Devils.

[AKA_Bait]

Dammit...I stop posting for one day and the thread nearly doubles in size.


My sentiments exactly.


One is a moral issue, the other is a question of realpolitik.

I find it interesting that you see a bright line bettween these two. I've always felt that realpolitik as you are describing it has moral implications of it's own.


They almost certainly don't want to kill you. They probably just want your stuff.

And to do things to my wife and daughter.


In this case it is arguable that morally it is better to give them your stuff without a fight than to kill them. Unless you really believe that your property is worth more than a human life.

Or, you know, you have an theory of rights a la most moral philosophy.


No it isn't. Nobody kills without a good reason or a serious medical condition. Sometimes the reason doesn't make sense to *you* but that's what "moral ambiguity" *means*.

You sir, have a very odd view of the world. People kill for bad reasons all the time and without any identifyable psychosis. Leopold and Loeb murdered just because they thought they could get away with it. Many a serial killer murdered because they got off on it. The fact that they have a reason does not make the situation morally ambigious by default unless you accept the premise that there is no objective morality whatsoever.


Innocent Evil -> Defense Lawyer

Hey now! That presumes a heck of a lot about the system that lawyer is defending people against. I know quite a few Defense Lawyers that are Decidedly Lawful Good.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You sir, have a very odd view of the world. People kill for bad reasons all the time and without any identifyable psychosis. Leopold and Loeb murdered just because they thought they could get away with it. Many a serial killer murdered because they got off on it. The fact that they have a reason does not make the situation morally ambigious by default unless you accept the premise that there is no objective morality whatsoever.


If you kill because you get off on it, that's pretty much a psychosis *by definition*.

The point is that either you're positing Objective Good and Evil or you aren't. If you are, then it doesn't matter whether you're saying "these Orcs are evil and need killin'" or "these bandits are evil and need killin'" it amounts to the same thing.

The alternative is that you play in a world where people have real personalities, and make real decisions for real reasons. In that case the adventurers that kill for money are no different to any other band of mercenaries.

[AKA_Bait]

The point is that either you're positing Objective Good and Evil or you aren't. If you are, then it doesn't matter whether you're saying "these Orcs are evil and need killin'" or "these bandits are evil and need killin'" it amounts to the same thing.

The alternative is that you play in a world where people have real personalities, and make real decisions for real reasons. In that case the adventurers that kill for money are no different to any other band of mercenaries.

There is a middle alternative. You can posit objective Good and Evil on the basis of actions without taking away morally ambigious situations. Conequentialism allows for that. Even Kantianism allows for it in many formulations. Any situation with moral rules which allow for the possible conflict of those rules (which is any system even approaching the real world) acknowledges those situations exist and attempts to deal with them. They at the same time maintain that there are objective Goods. It's not the all or nothing proposition you make it out to be.

Also, at what point did 'I'm doing it because it is the right thing to do' stop being a 'real reason'?

[Frosty]

The alternative is that you play in a world where people have real personalities, and make real decisions for real reasons. In that case the adventurers that kill for money are no different to any other band of mercenaries.

You are spot on. Adventurers that kill for money *are* mercenaries. PCs can (and in fact, most of the time are) be mercenaries. And they'll turn evil if they kill indiscrimantly.

[Citizen Joe]

Hey now! That presumes a heck of a lot about the system that lawyer is defending people against. I know quite a few Defense Lawyers that are Decidedly Lawful Good.

It only takes ONE bad apple.

What was the original question again?

Can a paladin kill an orc without question simply for being evil?
No matter what, killing is, at best, neutral. No matter how bad the enemy, killing him doesn't make the situation any better, at best it keeps it from getting worse. The problem arises from the fact that most paladins are unskilled at stopping or punishing a foe with non-lethal force. Thus, lethal force isn't their first choice, it is their only choice. Given the vast amount of killing that a typical paladin does in the name of punishing evil doers, he should atone at every chance he gets and have a lot of counseling with the church. If it is his policy to atone after every mission, then he is letting the church, and also his god know that he is trying to behave in a manner respecting his god. If the god/church don't like what he is doing, then they can counsel him in another direction. If he doesn't go in for counseling and just stays on a rampage, then his god doesn't have a means of warning him short of stripping his powers.

[Swordguy]

Can a paladin kill an orc without question simply for being evil?
No matter what, killing is, at best, neutral. No matter how bad the enemy, killing him doesn't make the situation any better, at best it keeps it from getting worse. The problem arises from the fact that most paladins are unskilled at stopping or punishing a foe with non-lethal force. Thus, lethal force isn't their first choice, it is their only choice. Given the vast amount of killing that a typical paladin does in the name of punishing evil doers, he should atone at every chance he gets and have a lot of counseling with the church. If it is his policy to atone after every mission, then he is letting the church, and also his god know that he is trying to behave in a manner respecting his god. If the god/church don't like what he is doing, then they can counsel him in another direction. If he doesn't go in for counseling and just stays on a rampage, then his god doesn't have a means of warning him short of stripping his powers.

I think that's the fundamental disconnect. I do not believe this.

[Jayngfet]

I think that's the fundamental disconnect. I do not believe this.

so a paladin can kill on alignment alone?


"look a merchant, come on detect evil, no whammy no whammy, stop

[Swordguy]

so a paladin can kill on alignment alone?


"look a merchant, come on detect evil, no whammy no whammy, stop

Nice misreading. Okay, I'll spell it out.

I do not believe that killing is an inherently evil or neutral act. I believe it can be a good act, depending on the circumstances*. I believe that it is, in fact, the correct course of action in some circumstances. I believe that it's not done enough in real life.

*This does not include simply "being evil", though I believe that readings of the RAW can support that view. I look at this as a need to revise and clarify the RAW.

[Dervag]

The alternative is that you play in a world where people have real personalities, and make real decisions for real reasons. In that case the adventurers that kill for money are no different to any other band of mercenaries.At least, no different from any other band of mercenaries that does the same things, follows the same strictures, and demands the same level of payment.

There is a decided difference between a paladin who kills things or people and takes their treasure and a blackguard who kills things or people and takes their treasure, but it's mostly in which things and people they kill, why, and what they do afterwards.

[Citizen Joe]

Nice misreading. Okay, I'll spell it out.

I do not believe that killing is an inherently evil or neutral act. I believe it can be a good act, depending on the circumstances*. I believe that it is, in fact, the correct course of action in some circumstances. I believe that it's not done enough in real life.

Very well, I challenge you to find a circumstance where killing someone is inherently good. And it can't be one of those hackneyed kill a hundred now so a million can live later things either. Must be a relatively common occurrence.

[Swordguy]

Very well, I challenge you to find a circumstance where killing someone is inherently good. And it can't be one of those hackneyed kill a hundred now so a million can live later things either. Must be a relatively common occurrence.

Last March I shot and killed a serial rapist outside our apartment complex. He was the cousin of the local sheriff, and so was out on his own recognizance. The girl he was in the process of assaulting would have been his fourth victim.

Moreover, shooting at ambulance drivers in Iraq was a common occurence for us, since "certain people" knew we didn't like to do it - so they'd load them up with explosives and come in, sirens wailing, after one of our friends had already been shot. We'd be gathered around the casualty, and they'd detonate the bus once it pulled up to us. I consider it somewhat akin to attacking under a flag of truce - and it's definitely a Rules of War violation. It's why we no longer evac people in local transport, but only use Humvees or Strikers.

Frankly, I don't care whether you find these to be good or evil. They're good actions to me. Some people need to be killed - and it's a disservice to the rest of humanity to allow them to keep doing what they do.

[Dervag]

Last March I shot and killed a serial rapist outside our apartment complex. He was the cousin of the local sheriff, and so was out on his own recognizance. The girl he was in the process of assaulting would have been his fourth victim.Good answer.

[Citizen Joe]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are many times when killing is necessary, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

In the case of the rapist, shooting him left the girl in no better condition than before the encounter, thus neutral. Her wounds did not miraculously heal from the rapist's death, she just didn't get worse.

Shooting suicide bombers doesn't make the world a better place, it just prevents them from making it worse.

And for the record, I think both of those cases were perfectly justified and needed to be done. They just aren't good acts.

The good acts are when the soldiers give some of their rations to starving civilians and rebuild pumping stations so that they have fresh water.

[BRC]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are many times when killing is necessary, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

In the case of the rapist, shooting him left the girl in no better condition than before the encounter, thus neutral. Her wounds did not miraculously heal from the rapist's death, she just didn't get worse.

Shooting suicide bombers doesn't make the world a better place, it just prevents them from making it worse.

And for the record, I think both of those cases were perfectly justified and needed to be done. They just aren't good acts.

The good acts are when the soldiers give some of their rations to starving civilians and rebuild pumping stations so that they have fresh water.

Wait, so saving a life is not a good act?
A lifeguard see's a kid drowning, so he swims out and saves him. But according to you, since the kid is the same as he was a few minutes ago, what the lifeguard just did was a neutral act, not a good one.

[Citizen Joe]

Wait, so saving a life is not a good act?
A lifeguard see's a kid drowning, so he swims out and saves him. But according to you, since the kid is the same as he was a few minutes ago, what the lifeguard just did was a neutral act, not a good one.

No... in your example, killing the water that the kid was drowning in would be a neutral act (not that it would actually save the kid). Rescuing the kid is a good act. Rescuing the rape victim is a good act. Killing the rapist is a neutral act. Your assumption is that the only way to save the rape victim is to kill the rapist.

EDIT: Let me extend that further. Let's say the kid was drowning and went unconscious. The lifeguard goes in and drags the kid out... leaving him on the ground. THAT is a neutral act. But Lifeguards usually go further by resuscitating the victim... THAT is the good act.

[Frosty]

It's not, but sometimes the one most guaranteed to work. You don't have time to think about these things in the moment of things. you do what you gotta do to achieve the best results. If you chose some route other thanm killing, and the girl was not rescued in time, then you definitely failed to do a Good act.

Killing is a tool. Like any other tool, it can be used for good or evil. Citizen Joe is correct that the act of killing itself is not good. In my opinion it is also not evil. It's the WHY and the HOW that makes the entire sequence of events good or evil.

[Citizen Joe]

OK, Frosty gets it. Now just apply that to killing the orc and you have your answer.

[Crow]

LOL. You kill the rapist and then find out the two were actually a couple engaging in "role play".

[BRC]

OK, Frosty gets it. Now just apply that to killing the orc and you have your answer.
Oh, I thnk I see it now. Killing is never good in terms of the Means to achieve somthing, but it can achieve good Ends.

[Dervag]

No... in your example, killing the water that the kid was drowning in would be a neutral act (not that it would actually save the kid). Rescuing the kid is a good act. Rescuing the rape victim is a good act. Killing the rapist is a neutral act. Your assumption is that the only way to save the rape victim is to kill the rapist.Yes, but he has a point.


EDIT: Let me extend that further. Let's say the kid was drowning and went unconscious. The lifeguard goes in and drags the kid out... leaving him on the ground. THAT is a neutral act. But Lifeguards usually go further by resuscitating the victim... THAT is the good act.Actually, leaving the kid on the ground beats leaving him in the water, so I'd call that a good deed.

Moreover, I question the basic reasoning of your argument- that the only way to do a good deed is to find some specific person and improve their lot in life. Preventing them from suffering horribly should count too.

[Swordguy]

LOL. You kill the rapist and then find out the two were actually a couple engaging in "role play".

LOL...arms don't bend that way.



Preventing them from suffering horribly should count too.

He gets it.

See, there's really only one way for someone to stop an act like that - especially for me. At the time, I was just out of the military and still limping horribly. I 5'7", 160lbs. Guy's 6'+ and prolly close to 250lbs. After I called the cops, they gave a 20 minute response time. What else was I gonna do? Use harsh language?

Standing by is evil. I don't think any of us really disagree with that. Acting to save a person suffering like that is an inherently good act - and I don't think any of us really disagree with that. If the only realistic way to stop that suffering is lethal force, it's still a good act.

[comicshorse]

O.k. I wasn't there so this is purely hypothetical, but .... taser, mace, shooting him in the leg.

I offer these purely as suggestions. Killing may stop suffering but at the price of sufering. Therefore it should always be the very last resort. ( Evemn more so in a fantasy world where all sorts of magic exists to stop without killing)

[Citizen Joe]

Moreover, I question the basic reasoning of your argument- that the only way to do a good deed is to find some specific person and improve their lot in life. Preventing them from suffering horribly should count too.
But can you really do that? In the rapist scenario, the girl was still assaulted (presumably injured), and now has a traumatic experience, plus the possibility of getting shot, fragments/richochets, potential disease through blood contact... no ride home :smalltongue: I'll assume Swordguy helped the girl with some first aid and called the police for some counseling and made sure she got a ride to the hospital for a thorough checkup after the event. All of that is a good act, changing the girl's state from rape victim to rape survivor. However, all that would have been acts done AFTER the shooting.

Let's go back to the orc scenario...

Killing the orc would be neutral (at best). The village is still damaged, the dead are still dead, the fields are still salted.

Now, let's assume that he captures the orc instead and forces it to fix all the stuff he destroyed and performed all the duties of the people he killed. Is that a good act? Or did he just enslave someone?

[Citizen Joe]

See, there's really only one way for someone to stop an act like that - especially for me. At the time, I was just out of the military and still limping horribly. I 5'7", 160lbs. Guy's 6'+ and prolly close to 250lbs. After I called the cops, they gave a 20 minute response time. What else was I gonna do? Use harsh language?

Actually, yes... Harsh language would be the good act. By calling him out, you would have drawn him away from the girl, saving her. You would have sacrificed yourself to save her as well, which is a very good act. You could have taken the beating and then testified against him in court. As a veteran and a man, you would have had more credibility that a woman (who may or may not have simply been having an S&M role play session with him <- defense attorney spin). To top it all off, nobody dies. Plus you've got good medical coverage from the military to cover your medical bills while the girl very likely has no insurance.

Personally, I would have taken the neutral act and capped his ass and not thought twice about it. But I'm not pretending to be a paladin.

[Swordguy]

Actually, yes... Harsh language would be the good act. By calling him out, you would have drawn him away from the girl, saving her. You would have sacrificed yourself to save her as well, which is a very good act. You could have taken the beating and then testified against him in court. As a veteran and a man, you would have had more credibility that a woman (who may or may not have simply been having an S&M role play session with him <- defense attorney spin). To top it all off, nobody dies. Plus you've got good medical coverage from the military to cover your medical bills while the girl very likely has no insurance.


[Darth Helmet] This is why evil will win...because Good is dumb. [/Darth Helmet]

What you describe does nobody any good except for him.



Personally, I would have taken the neutral act and capped his ass and not thought twice about it. But I'm not pretending to be a paladin.

Glad to hear it. I was getting kind of worried there. It's people who aren't willing to do things for their fellow man (such as excise a cancer on society like him) that contribute the most (in my opinion) to the downfall of society.



but .... taser, mace, shooting him in the leg.

You've clearly never been in a lethal situation. In order: doesn't necessarily work, requires I be within arms distance (and thus knife range), and breaks a cardinal rule of combat shooting...always aim for the center of mass. It's real life. Not a movie.

And, in general: I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that such an excisement is not a good act.

[Frosty]

If the man is about to rape the woman, or the orcs have just reached the village, then killing them may be part of a good act, since you are actively preventing bad things from happening. After the fact it's more about punishmnt and revenge, but before the act it is definitely a part of good.

[horseboy]

and breaks a cardinal rule of combat shooting...always aim for the center of mass. Not to mention still potentially lethal thanks to shock/trauma.

Edit: Or hit the artery and cause a slow inhumane bleed out death. Nope quick and clean even for trash like that.

[comicshorse]

or the orcs have just reached the village, then killing them may be part of a good act, since you are actively preventing bad things from happening.

No you are replacing one bad thing ( the attack on the villagers) with a less bad thing ( the killing of the attackers).
I'm not against driving off the orcs that is indeed the right thing to do. All I would say is that once the attack has been broken then the killing should stop.

[Miles Invictus]

Actually, yes... Harsh language would be the good act. By calling him out, you would have drawn him away from the girl, saving her. You would have sacrificed yourself to save her as well, which is a very good act. You could have taken the beating and then testified against him in court. As a veteran and a man, you would have had more credibility that a woman (who may or may not have simply been having an S&M role play session with him <- defense attorney spin). To top it all off, nobody dies. Plus you've got good medical coverage from the military to cover your medical bills while the girl very likely has no insurance.

You're making a lot of unsupported assumptions and doing a lot of armchair quarterbacking to prove your point. It's insulting.



Personally, I would have taken the neutral act and capped his ass and not thought twice about it. But I'm not pretending to be a paladin.

You're divorcing the act from the motivations behind it. The motivation is to prevent imminent evil from being carried out. Motivation turns a neutral act into a good one.

[EvilElitest]

Innocent.. evil... person?

How, pray tell, does one who is innocent become classified as evil?
That boggles my mind.

You can be innocent and be evil. If i was a selfish bastard who stole every so often, and a local paladin who was looking for a demon cultist saw my alignment and lopped my head off even through i'm not a demon cultist, that is till killing an innocent person. Being evil is not a crime



Also: In the case of the now-defenseless orc village where you mercilessly killed every warrior they have, you have four choices:

Well if i'm a paladin i would first be obligated to offer them mercy and only kill them if they were committing a crime


You can give them food, making them hate you less. Not like you, you still killed their friends and family. But less hateful. Maybe now they'll only try to kill you, instead of your entire village.

Why? They lost all of their warriors and i'm going home. Why would they attack me? Sure i'll defend myself if they do but it is pretty stupid


Or you could personally slay each and every one of them. Gruesome, but there's more EXP and gold in it. Plus, you got rid of some orcs who you can pretend were evil and maybe get a reward.

and now i'm evil, sucks



But seriously. Where does an innocent evil person exist?

Um, Shojo could have been NE for all we know and he still didn't deserve death. Being evil is not a crime committing harmful evil deeds is



I think you're absolutely right, but I don't think that's the implication carried by the description. The description fairly explicitly cites "truces" as one of the things which Orcs can't be relied upon to respect
Proof?



Again, this is obviously stupid if we consider Orcs to be a rational race of sentient beings with an interest in their own self-preservation, and the continued survival of their race, but that's not how they're presented in the actual game
proof?



As far as I'm concerned, "selfish" is neutral. If it *isn't* then neutral really has nowhere to go. Either you're altruistic and therefore good, or selfish and therefore evil, what's the middle ground?
i make people cry for my personal amusement, and i cheat at gambling. I also cheat on tests and kick puppies. So i'm evil, but that doesn't give a paladin the right to lope my head off.


But in that case, how can an evil person count as "innocent"? If they're cruel, callous, manipulative bastards, they aren't really "innocent" are they? Just because they happen not to have killed anybody yet.
You have a right to be a cruel, callous, manipulative person if you aren't actively committing evil deeds. The main character from the Christmas Carol would be evil. So would plenty of real life historical figures, like Henry the 8th, or Cotez. And some evil people believe they doing the right thing, like an over zealous knight or John Brown


Killing something on sight caused the Cataclysm... Anyone ever read Time of the Twins?
yeah, Lupy knows how the system works



Oh absolutely, but that's a pretty big "if". There's also nothing wrong with presenting your Orcs as Tolkein presented his: fell servants of darkness who dwell in the blasted shadows of your world (with no arable land or plausible means of feeding themselves) in service to the Dark Lord.
fun fact, did you know that Tolkien, a devout Catholic made it so not all LOTRs orcs were evil, because it went against his personal religious believes of redeemption. one of the moral themes of LOTRS is redeemption of evil and understanding. "Nothing was born evil, even Sauron was not so"



I know quite a few Defense Lawyers that are Decidedly Lawful Good.
Dudes Atticuss, we need defense lawyers


I think that's the fundamental disconnect. I do not believe this.
I think WOTC disagrees, killing evil creatures or killing for good reasons is neutral, not good.


Last March I shot and killed a serial rapist outside our apartment complex. He was the cousin of the local sheriff, and so was out on his own recognizance. The girl he was in the process of assaulting would have been his fourth victim.
Still neutral, because you had a good reason to kill him and it helped but that doesn't justify the killing itself. Also even if he was a sheriff's cousin, that doesn't protect him in real life. It is justified, and the action of saving the girl is good, but the killing is not, at least by WOTC



See, there's really only one way for someone to stop an act like that - especially for me. At the time, I was just out of the military and still limping horribly. I 5'7", 160lbs. Guy's 6'+ and prolly close to 250lbs. After I called the cops, they gave a 20 minute response time. What else was I gonna do? Use harsh language
true story? well you had a gun, you could threat him, or hit him with a bat. Still, saving the girl would be good,



Glad to hear it. I was getting kind of worried there. It's people who aren't willing to do things for their fellow man (such as excise a cancer on society like him) that contribute the most (in my opinion) to the downfall of society
It is worth noting that zealotry in such a belief is far worst sadly. Not accusing you just pointing that out
from
EE

[osyluth]

Since it says all exceptions are unique, and said exceptions might be, I dunno, neutral evil or lawful evil rather than chaotic evil for a demon, I'm comfortable with that.

We got a demon paladin with Elducia.

[Frosty]

Again, this is obviously stupid if we consider Orcs to be a rational race of sentient beings with an interest in their own self-preservation, and the continued survival of their race, but that's not how they're presented in the actual game

Proof?


I don't understand what you mean by this EE.

[EvilElitest]

I don't understand what you mean by this EE.

What rule keeps them from being a rational race of sentient beings? They aren't like oozes, they have a culture
from
EE

[Frosty]

I believe the evidence against that is in the monster manual (the fluff of which I ignore for the most part)

[EvilElitest]

I believe the evidence against that is in the monster manual (the fluff of which I ignore for the most part)

The fluff just kinda says they are barbaric and normally evil, doesn't really go into their culture
from
EE

[Frosty]

Right, but what it says is enough to make them seem like they are completely irrational and can't survive in an internally consistent world due to things other posters have pointed out. The other races would've banded together and killed them a long time ago.

Only reason 40K orcs haven't been wiped out is because they are freaking fungi.

[horseboy]

You can be innocent and be evil. If i was a selfish bastard who stole every so often, and a local paladin who was looking for a demon cultist saw my alignment and lopped my head off even through i'm not a demon cultist, that is till killing an innocent person. Being evil is not a crime

Being objectively evil, like the evil of D&D, requires that you be objectively evil, which means you will commit crimes. A "selfish bastard who stole every so often" is not innocent. They are a thief. There is no such thing as "innocent evil" when there's objective evil.

[Jayngfet]

Being objectively evil, like the evil of D&D, requires that you be objectively evil, which means you will commit crimes. A "selfish bastard who stole every so often" is not innocent. They are a thief. There is no such thing as "innocent evil" when there's objective evil.

what about innocent good? if you do something against the law to feed a starving child, you still break the law, this is why there is a good to evil and a law to chaos axis

[VanBuren]

Being objectively evil, like the evil of D&D, requires that you be objectively evil, which means you will commit crimes. A "selfish bastard who stole every so often" is not innocent. They are a thief. There is no such thing as "innocent evil" when there's objective evil.

Actually, I think pre-ghost Scrooge would qualify as being Evil. I mean, he doesn't break any laws, but he also doesn't give a damn about anyone else. He even thinks that those that can't fend for themselves should die and reduce the surplus population.

3.X's alignment system allows for quite a wide margin of Evil, IMO. Thankfully it seems like 4E will fix that.

[horseboy]

Actually, I think pre-ghost Scrooge would qualify as being Evil. I mean, he doesn't break any laws, but he also doesn't give a damn about anyone else. He even thinks that those that can't fend for themselves should die and reduce the surplus population.

3.X's alignment system allows for quite a wide margin of Evil, IMO. Thankfully it seems like 4E will fix that.Nope, that's indifferent. And, per the druid alignment blurb indifferent is neutral.

what about innocent good? if you do something against the law to feed a starving child, you still break the law, this is why there is a good to evil and a law to chaos axis
Technically, that's still not innocent. That is extenuating circumstances, for which justice can make an allowance.

[Jayngfet]

Nope, that's indifferent. And, per the druid alignment blurb indifferent is neutral.

but druids can be any other alignment, just no two at once


Technically, that's still not innocent. That is extenuating circumstances, for which justice can make an allowance.

define innocent...

[VanBuren]

Nope, that's indifferent. And, per the druid alignment blurb indifferent is neutral.

Saying that it's better for them to die isn't Neutral, no. It actually sort of implies a form of Social Darwinism, which kind of seems fairly Evil.

[Jayngfet]

Saying that it's better for them to die isn't Neutral, no. It actually sort of implies a form of Social Darwinism, which kind of seems fairly Evil.

huh, I always saw social darwinisim as an inheritly neutral act, y'know bad for a few, good for the rest

[VanBuren]

huh, I always saw social darwinisim as an inheritly neutral act, y'know bad for a few, good for the rest

Really? It always felt kinda "Law of the Jungle"-esque, which is fine for animals but would be a little suspect for sapient creatures. Doesn't the FR deity Malar have something like that as part of his ethos?

[Jayngfet]

Really? It always felt kinda "Law of the Jungle"-esque, which is fine for animals but would be a little suspect for sapient creatures. Doesn't the FR deity Malar have something like that as part of his ethos?

if it was evil for sapients, wouldn't druids be a little less neutral?

[horseboy]

but druids can be any other alignment, just no two at once? Druids have to have neutral somewhere in their alignment to show nature's indifference.
define innocent...
in·no·cent /ˈɪnəsənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-uh-suhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.
6. having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.
7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant.
–noun
8. an innocent person.
9. a young child.
10. a guileless person.
11. a simpleton or idiot.
12. Usually, innocents. (used with a singular verb) bluet (def. 1).
A "good" person who steals to feed a child, let alone steals in a game world where all you've got to do is go down to the local temple of Pelor where they conjure food to feed the hungry, is not in any definition of innocent.
Saying that it's better for them to die isn't Neutral, no. It actually sort of implies a form of Social Darwinism, which kind of seems fairly Evil.
Nope. For starters, he didn't "wish" death on everyone, just people that bothered him. If you didn't bother Scrooge, he didn't care if you lived or died. Pester him and he wanted you to go away and never come back. All he wanted was to be left alone. Combine that with a world where confirmation of the after life is only one plane shift away. death isn't even that scary or mean. Yes, the little orphans would be better off dead since they wouldn't be suffering anymore.

[Zenos]

huh, I always saw social darwinisim as an inheritly neutral act, y'know bad for a few, good for the rest

Actually I think social darwinist is Evil since it is the survival of the STRONGEST, if you want a more neutral version, try survival of the FITTEST, which is different.

[EvilElitest]

Nope, that's indifferent. And, per the druid alignment blurb indifferent is neutral.


No that is being callus and insensitive, not "live and let live". Evil

And yes Social Darwinism is Evil, see Malar from FR


3.X's alignment system allows for quite a wide margin of Evil, IMO. Thankfully it seems like 4E will fix that.

Not that just simplifies it and make the lines even more black and white

An evil person could just be a selfish merchant, or an over zealous judge.


And even when you get into evil people who have committed evil acts, that is no justification to kill them on site. A perfectly lawful guard might beat his wife at times, evil. A guard might have let some thieves off because of minor bribes, evil. A man might have murdered somebody because he was starving, evil. Killing these people on sight is still murder
from
EE

[Talya]

3.X's alignment system allows for quite a wide margin of Evil, IMO. Thankfully it seems like 4E will fix that.

Why is that a good thing?

There is a wide margin of evil, and there should be a wide margin of evil.

And yes, evil can be "innocent," and still be evil in D&D. Objective Evil is represented by not giving a damn about the wellbeing or lives of others; it is complete disregard and disrespect for the value of life. A Paladin can't go around killing or arresting everyone who pings on his evildar, because they might not have done anything wrong. He'll certainly watch them closely, but there's no law against being rotten to the core.

[BRC]

Personally, I think that Evil should be more Intent or Actions(not trying to start an intent vs actions debate here), not nature. For example, lets say there is a paladin who thinks everybody is scum and deserves a good kicking. However, he knows that just because you want to punch that rude drunk in the face is not justification for doing so, and so he dosn't. if he DID go around beating up everybody who annoyed him, he would definetally be evil, but since he dosn't actually perform any evil actions, I would say he could remain Lawful Good.

[VanBuren]

Why is that a good thing?

There is a wide margin of evil, and there should be a wide margin of evil.

I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying there should just be one type of Good or one type of Evil, but that there shouldn't be Good/Evil Lite. I think that Good should mean that you're really Good and Evil that you're pretty damn Evil. Evil is trivial when Scrooge qualifies. But it actually has depth and ramifications if it actually takes more an effort than that.

[Citizen Joe]

I'd just like to point out that nowhere in the description of a paladin does it give him the right to kill anyone, let alone evil people. The closest justification is the punishment of those that threaten or harm innocents. So, regardless of whether or not an evil person can be innocent, the paladin still needs to prove that the evil person 'threatened' or 'harmed' an 'innocent'. Even then, his duty only allows him to 'punish' not specifically kill the offender.

So, going back to the initial question "Can the paladin kill the orc?" The answer remains vague, but unless THAT orc (or the whole orc community) threatened or attacked a village that contained innocent people, then he is not within the bounds of the paladin code. What is more, killing won't necessarily be a good thing either. Whether the paladin falls or not comes down tho the paladin's rationale for the attack. And I think that 'because he is evil' is a borderline evil action. But that really is a DM judgement call and much of it depends on whether the orc defends himself or is killed in his sleep.

[Kompera]

The Orcs fate is in the hands of the GM.

Good and evil are completely relative. So completely relative that the GM is the only real authority on how the rules/fluff/vague instruction which exists will be implemented in her campaign.

And the player is at a huge disadvantage. No matter how deep the role play environment is in any given game, the player does not live in the fantasy setting. The player can only make educated guesses at what behavior is considered good and what behavior is considered evil. More, any given player role playing a Paladin can only try their best to live up to the tenets of their Deity and the Paladin's code.

And if there exists an adversarial play environment, the player has no chance of emerging with their Paladin status intact.

All that said, the player has only one real recourse: Talk to the GM when you're generating the character. Outline the handicaps detailed above, and tell the GM that you will both need and expect guidance from time to time. If the player directs the character to perform an act which the GM would rule is against the Paladin's code and will cause a fall, the player has the right to expect fair warning. Unless the player is deliberately trying to skirt the edges of their acceptable behavior this fair warning is required for any semblance of non-arbitrary penalty to exist.

[Talya]

I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying there should just be one type of Good or one type of Evil, but that there shouldn't be Good/Evil Lite. I think that Good should mean that you're really Good and Evil that you're pretty damn Evil. Evil is trivial when Scrooge qualifies. But it actually has depth and ramifications if it actually takes more an effort than that.

Objective does not mean everything is in black and white and good and evil spend all their time trying to kill each other. This isn't Star Wars. The Alignment system is pretty deep and well done. BoVD and BoED elaborate and explain the system nicely, but it should be pointed out there is nothing new in those books with regard to alignment, just more in depth examples and explanations of what's already in the system. Good and Evil in D&D may be objective rather than relative, but that doesn't make them easy or less complex.

[Morty]

I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying there should just be one type of Good or one type of Evil, but that there shouldn't be Good/Evil Lite. I think that Good should mean that you're really Good and Evil that you're pretty damn Evil. Evil is trivial when Scrooge qualifies. But it actually has depth and ramifications if it actually takes more an effort than that.

Then you have a system where there are nine different alignments, but 80% of population is of one of the three of them. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Which is not to say 4ed alignments don't look better, but they're fairly different than 3ed ones. Also, none of these change the fact that Planescape is the only instance where alignment system itself has any merit.

[Jayngfet]

? Druids have to have neutral somewhere in their alignment to show nature's indifference.

indifference to what, good, evil, law, chaos, they only need indifference to one of these things, you still have good and evil druids.

in·no·cent /ˈɪnəsənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-uh-suhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.
6. having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.
7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant.
–noun
8. an innocent person.
9. a young child.
10. a guileless person.
11. a simpleton or idiot.
12. Usually, innocents. (used with a singular verb) bluet (def. 1).
even a child won't fall under all of these, and nowhere does it say that good=innocent, a good guy does something bad t o help others, a bad guy does it to help himself, ether way, they're both guilty



A "good" person who steals to feed a child, let alone steals in a game world where all you've got to do is go down to the local temple of Pelor where they conjure food to feed the hungry, is not in any definition of innocent.
yes but not every town has a cleric, remember, clerics are usually the elite of a faith, a lot of priests only have commoner levels, and since not every priest can go fight some gauth every tuesday, a good deal of them never make it pas level three, so only in larger towns and cities with devoutly religious cities will there be enough fifth level clerics, and then you have to pay for the spell, so the destitute still go hungry.

[horseboy]

ieven a child won't fall under all of these,Not even #9 there? :smalleek: Yes, a child falls under several
and nowhere does it say that good=innocent, Correct. Innocent can=good, but good doesn't automatically=innocent.

a good guy does something bad t o help others, a bad guy does it to help himself, ether way, they're both guiltyCorrect.


yes but not every town has a cleric, remember, clerics are usually the elite of a faith, a lot of priests only have commoner levels, and since not every priest can go fight some gauth every tuesday, a good deal of them never make it pas level three, so only in larger towns and cities with devoutly religious cities will there be enough fifth level clerics, and then you have to pay for the spell, so the destitute still go hungry.Every small town does have a cleric, at least according to page 139 of the DMG. Though I did get create food and create water mixed. Still, if you steal, even for "good" reasons, you are not innocent.

[Citizen Joe]

Actually, I think I see the crux of the problem. In a world of objective evil and good, the paladin's code is based on a subjective term (innocent). Now, if the whole alignment system was a subjective basis and you used the subjective code, then you're on the same playing field as the DM. If you had objective alignments and objective code (see Robocop as a paladin) then you're on the same playing field as well. But when the alignment is hard objective, provable and quantifiable, but you have to act on a subjective code, that spells arguments and disputes and eventually the fall of the paladin due to an increasing antagonistic role formed by these disputes.

[BRC]

I'm going ot throw out my personal alignment theory, I am in no way saying this is 100% correct, or even supported by RAW, just the way I see it.

Alignment are caused by Intent. Somebody kills an innocent who they think is guilty, they can still be Good even though they just committed an evil act. It's their motivation that matters. A public executioner who enjoys his job because he gets to kill things is still evil, even if he only kills those found guilty by due process of law, and does it quickly. Because he does it primarily because he likes killing (this is just a way for him to do it without getting in trouble), he remains mildly evil.

However, Paladins have the power of good looking over their shoulders, so they can fall from both Action AND Intent. A paladin kills a few innocents who he thinks are demon worshipping cultists trying to kill a town, he still falls, even though his alignment remains the same.